The Hobbit looked like it was playing in fast forward in 48 fps and the storyline had no resolution for anything. I mean, even in Fellowship of the Ring there was a resolution for the fellowship, and Boromir. For the Hobbit, it really shows that it's one book split into three movies.

The Hobbit looked like it was playing in fast forward in 48 fps and the storyline had no resolution for anything. I mean, even in Fellowship of the Ring there was a resolution for the fellowship, and Boromir. For the Hobbit, it really shows that it's one book split into three movies.

The Hobbit looked like it was playing in fast forward in 48 fps and the storyline had no resolution for anything. I mean, even in Fellowship of the Ring there was a resolution for the fellowship, and Boromir. For the Hobbit, it really shows that it's one book split into three movies.

I thought it was 2 movies?

Cha-Ching. 3 movies.

Meanwhile we're only getting one LÚ MisÚ which is based off of one of the longest tales ever committed to paper (it puts War and Peace to shame), and compared to a trilogy based off a book shorter than any of the three books in its succeeding trilogy it's downright silly.

And let it be said that I will not be surprised if somehow, and for some reason, the Tom Babadil/Old Willow segment from the Fellowship of the Ring will make it into the next Hobbit movie purely for the sake of padding out the movie (hell, they're already padding it out with a D&D quest to slay the Necromancer, which I also wouldn't be surprised to find it based off the Barrow Downs segment also missing from the Fellowship movie). It's not like Jackson's writing fanfiction....just, rearranging the order of events that already existed (in a different set of works) slightly to compensate for only having half an already short book's worth of material to film left not covering it the first time when it would've been more appropriate.

The Golden Globes may be a sucky awards show, but at least they have the sense to break out the categories. A musical like Les Mis shouldn't be in the same category as regular movies. It just seems odd to me.

Life of Pi -**1/2/4 starsNot quite what I was expecting based on the gushing reviews. For one, I read the book years ago, but didn't remember much about it besides the boat and the tiger. Because of this, I forgot how much exposition there is before we get to the boat and the tiger.The movie spends a lot of time on the back story of Pi, and his family. Too much time. I understand it's important to build up the characters so we can have feelings for them when bad things happen, but they could have cut out 20 of the first 45 minutes, and it still would have worked.There are also stretches in the middle that feel a bit too long. Like the director simply wanted us to feel the same isolation as Pi. Instead, it was just kind of boring, and I wanted them to move on already.My only other qualm is that it was a bit preachy. I didn't recall this aspect of the book. I have no problem with it being there, but when the point of the story is to, and I quote, "Make the writer believe in god", you really get my attention. And, of course, I saw no reason for any god-believing, and the author didn't suddenly convert, so I don't think he did, either.Despite it all, it was still a decent movie. Beautiful cinematography. The tiger was amazing. The 3D was well done, and perfectly integrated. It simply didn't meet my high expectations.

^^ I really liked the book until it became a "it's up to the viewer" ending. I hate that stuff. But in regards to isolation=boredom; I've always found that when a movie tries to show boredom/isolation (especialy if it's prolonged, liked you say it does), it can convey boredom to the viewer. I always hope directors avoid doing these parts for the same reason.

Apparently Quentin T. is getting flack for use of the N-word in Django.... have these people never seen Pulp Fiction?? Where were they then when it was less appropriate to use than in a movie about slavery? =/As usual though, Tarantino brushes it off.

Clockwork Orange - I finally saw this! I knew nothing about it going in, so it really floored me. Both in good and bad ways. It's an obvious statement on violence in a "civilized" society, but so much of it makes little sense in that regard. Hell, I was confused as to how old our main character was supposed to be.Teenager? College age? It's horrifying what these boys are able to get up to, and feel no apparent remorse. Let alone the complete lack of any parenting going on. Then our "hero" finally does get caught, gets sent to prison, and somehow ends up in a experimental reform program. I'm not quite sure the underlying statement here was supposed to be, besides mocking people who think prisoners can be reformed. Of course some can. And plenty can't can't. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try. But it also doesn't mean that an offender should be forgiven all crimes. Not having been around in 1971, I really don't know what the state of the country was, including views on violence and treatment of the people who commit said violence. All told, this was a bizarrely absorbing film that isn't quite as powerful a satire as it seems to think it is. At times, it seemed like they we're just having some fun making it.

Funny Grim mentioned Clockwork Orange, I watched The Perks of Being a Wallflower -- where they do these sort of performances to the film.

Great movie. Excellent performances from all three mains, and the supporting cast also play their roles extremely well. Emma Watson is lovely, Ezra Miller again amazes as clearly one of the better young actors this generation, and Logan Lerman gets what is probably his first big/serious role. The major issues are interesting, and while some might seem very much like the "teen issues" seen time and time again, but still has the ability to surprise and be sweet and fun. I think that's what I like most, when it isn't being a bit more serious, the cast is still a fun group of teenagers doing the stupid shit we all did and thinking what we thought. A few issues is that Logan Lerman is a pretty good looking kid, I can't picture him getting bullied at the start in real life (ok fine, nuance). . And while I love the film, I can't help but feel Paul Rudd was underplayed and rushed; same with the bit about the Aunt -- a very important character (although, it is a hard subject to touch and show on film). But what's worse is I'm not to sure what instigated a resurgence/recollection of the event and what purpose it served other than just "creating drama" for the finale (and his feelings about her are nothing short of complicated). The original material was originally written as a novella by the same person who wrote and directed the film. So one thing I thought was interesting to hear was how our main character's sister was given a larger role in the film while she was only mentioned in the book.

A big plus goes to the Truth or Dare scene and Ezra Miller for being amazing in this movie.

Saw The Hobbit in 3D. Despite it being on a pretty small screen, everything was still pretty badly blurred when things were moving quickly. It's been a while since I've seen a movie so I didn't really even notice the doubled frame rate at all, but that might just be because I was straining to actually see what the heck was going on a lot of the time.